coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Žalec.
6.  On 4 March 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 13 August 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 7,488,140 tolars (approximately 31,200 euros) for the injuries sustained.
At an undetermined time in 1997, the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was transferred to a new judge.
Between 5 November 1996 and 22 January 1999 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Between 27 April 1997 and 18 June 2001 the applicant lodged fourteen preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the six hearings held between 27 January 1998 and 26 June 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts and a road traffic expert. The court once replaced the designated road traffic expert with a new one.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 10 December 2001.
8.  On 17 December 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.
On 19 February 2002 the court requested the first-instance court to correct its judgment in the part concerning the penalty interests.
On 3 June 2003 the first-instance court corrected its judgment.
On 10 June 2003 the applicant appealed.
On 27 January 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeals, allowed the ZT’s appeal in part and lowered the damages awarded.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 February 2005.
9.  On 10 March 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Šentrupert.
6.  On 12 October 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 13 May 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,064,671 tolars (approximately 8,600 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 11 September 1998 and 30 October 2001 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 19 September 1997 and 8 June 1998 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the three hearings held between 11 September 1998 and 3 October 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed experts.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 25 October 2001.
8.  On 6 November 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 12 February 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the ZT’s appeal in part.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 23 April 2003.
9.  On 24 April 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 7 October 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 9 November 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Petrovče.
6.  On 17 March 1994 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 20 June 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Basic Court, Celje Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 795,722 tolars (approximately 3.300 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 1 January 1995 the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.
Between 16 November 1994 and 29 December 1997 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 16 November 1994 and 6 November 1996 he made eight requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the three hearings held between 11 December 1996 and 29 January 1998 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 18 February 1998.
8.  On 4 March 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 10 June 1998 the court allowed the appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The decision was served on the applicant on 27 August 1998.
9.  Between 4 February 1999 and 12 April 2001 the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 15 March and 4 May he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the four hearings held between 15 June 1999 and 22 May 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a work-safety expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 19 June 2001.
10.  On 20 June 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.
On 18 July 2002 the court allowed the appeals in part and amended the first-instance court’s judgment.
The decision was served on the applicant on 10 September 2002.
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Velenje.
6.  On 15 December 1996 the applicant was injured in an accident at work.
7.  On 3 January 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against her employer G in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,320,317 tolars (approximately 13,840 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 14 December 1998 and 10 February 2000 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions.
 Between 20 November 1997 and 23 June 1998 she made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the four hearings held between 20 November 1998 and 25 February 2000, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.
In the course of the proceedings the trail judge was appointed to the Higher Court and the case file was therefore assigned to another judge.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 8 May 2000.
8.  On 12 May 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). G cross-appealed.
On 4 October 2001 the court allowed both appeals in part and reduced the awarded damages.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 6 November 2001.
On 27 February 2002 the court issued a decision concerning G’s legal costs that had been missed out in the judgment.
9.  On 21 November 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). She also requested that a Supreme Court judge be excluded from the proceedings, which was rejected by the court on 10 June 2002.
On 8 January 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 6 March 2003.
8.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Kumertau in the Republic of Bashkortostan.
9.  In September 1994 the applicant purchased an imported second-hand car from a third person. Subsequently, the Bashkir Customs Board (“the Customs”) discovered that the car had been customs cleared by its previous owner on the basis of forged documents for which reason, on 13 May 1997, it conﬁscated the car pursuant to Article 280 of the Customs Code.
10.  Upon the applicant’s challenge on 15 May 1997 to the Customs’ decision, seeking to declare the decision to seize the car unlawful, the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa upheld the Customs’ decision on 24 June 1997. The judgment was final and not subject to appeal.
11.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Supreme Court to examine the case anew under a supervisory-review procedure. On 5 February 1999 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan allowed the application, set aside the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
12.  By judgment of 19 March 1999 the Sovetskiy District Court held in the applicant’s favour. It found it established that the applicant had not known that the customs clearance was improper for which reason the court quashed the Customs’ decision of 13 May 1997 as unlawful. The judgment was final and not subject to appeal.
13.  Following a subsequent successful supervisory-review request submitted by the Customs, the above judgment of 19 March 1999 was quashed and the case remitted once more to the Sovetskiy District Court for consideration. By judgment of 28 April 2000 this court held in favour of the Customs and dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the Customs’ decision of 13 May 1997.
14.  Following yet another supervisory review the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 3 June 2002 quashed the above judgment of 28 April 2000 and re-instated the judgment of 19 March 1999 which granted the applicant’s complaint that the Customs’ decision of 13 May 1997 was unlawful.
15.  According to the applicant, since his request for recovery of the car lodged with the Customs on 24 April 1999 had been to no avail, on 3 June 1999 he unsuccessfully attempted to file a suit against the Customs before the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa seeking, inter alia, the restitution of his car and non-pecuniary damages. He then unsuccessfully attempted to bring many actions against courts, including the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa, and individual judges accusing them of libel, incompetence, and obstruction of justice. However, he has failed, according to information available to the Court, properly to institute proceedings with a view to obtain compensation for the relevant losses.
16.  According to the Government, the car was not returned to the applicant because it had been sold following its confiscation in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Žalec.
6.  On 23 November 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 4 August 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 8,174,751 tolars (approximately 34,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 31 January 1996 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 15 January 1997 and 16 April 1998 he lodged preparatory written submissions.
On 6 February 1997 and 21 April 1998 the court held hearings.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 May 1998.
8.  On 5 June 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 14 January 1999 the first-instance court, at the request of the Celje Higher Court, amended the apparent errors in the judgment and resubmitted the case to the Celje Higher Court.
On 13 May 1999 the court allowed both appeals in part and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination in the part referring to the damages for disfigurement.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 August 1999.
9.  On 21 September 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT cross-appealed.
On 31 May 2000 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld ZT’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 July 2000.
10.  On 27 July 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 11 June 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 4 July 2001.
11.  On 9 April 2002 the first-instance court held a hearing concerning the damages for disfigurement. The parties reached a court settlement.
On 4 October 2002 the applicant requested the court to decide on the costs and expenses. The court rendered the decision on 3 July 2003.
12.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Celje Higher Court contesting the decision on costs and expenses.
On 18 November 2004 the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The decision was served on the applicant on 28 December 2004.
13.  On 16 February 2005 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
The case is pending before the Celje District Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Vitanje.
6.  On 28 April 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 2 June 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Basic Court, Slovenske Konjice Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Slovenjskih Konjicah) seeking damages in the amount of 5,075,000 tolars (approximately 21,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 1 January 1995 the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) gained jurisdiction in the case due to the reform of the Slovenian court system.
At an undetermined time in 1996, the presiding judge was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new judge.
Between 14 July 1994 and 27 March 1997 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing. During this time he lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the six hearings held between 7 June 1995 and 2 October 1998 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 29 December 1998.
8.  On 31 December 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 12 May 1999 the court allowed both appeals in part and lowered the damages awarded.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 July 1999.
9.  On 30 July 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). On 14 April 2000 he sought a recusal of one of the judges.
On 23 May 2000 the president of the court rejected the request for a recusal.
On 1 July 2000 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 July 2000.
10.  On 27 July 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 11 June 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 4 July 2001.
5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Grobelno.
6.  On 6 August 1989 the applicant was run over at the border crossing between Slovenia (at the time forming part of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and Austria by a caravan driven by a Dutch citizen who had taken out insurance with the insurance company CBS.
7.  On 8 November 1989 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the insurance companies ZT and CBS in the Celje Basic Court, Šentjur Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota Šentjur) seeking damages for the injuries sustained.
Following the first hearing, which was held on 22 December 1989, the court appointed medical and financial experts.
On 1 January 1995 the case was transferred to the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) following the reorganization of the Slovenian courts.
On 23 February 1995 the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Slovenia requested the Hertogenbosch Municipal Court (the Netherlands) to hear a witness.
Between 23 August 1994 and 21 June 1999 the applicant made fourteen requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Between 17 December 1997 and 16 April 2003 he lodged twenty-four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the seven hearings held between 4 December 1997 and 13 May 2003 one was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed three medical experts, a road traffic expert and an expert on financial accounting.
The judgment upholding in part the applicant’s claims was served on the applicant on 12 June 2003.
8.  On 16 June 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT and CBS cross-appealed.
On 14 April 2004 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and amended the first-instance court judgment. The court dismissed the ZT’s and CBS’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 June 2004.
9.  On 30 June 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Celje.
6.  On 25 February 1994 the applicant was injured while serving a military service as a conscript.
7.  On 4 February 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of Defence in the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking damages in the amount of 1,821,312 Slovenian tolars (approximately 7,590 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 30 October 2000 the Ljubljana Local Court declared that the case was out of its jurisdiction and reassigned it to the Ljubljana District Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani).
Between 26 October 2000 and 15 October 2001 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 9 September 1998 and 20 November 2001 he made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the five hearings held between 20 September 2001 and 31 May 2002, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
At the last hearing, the Ljubljana District Court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 11 June 2002.
8.  On 27 June 2002 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani).
On 11 June 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The decision was served on the applicant on 26 June 2003.
9. In the re-examination proceedings, the applicant made a request that a date be set for a hearing on 28 August 2003.
On 16 October 2003 he lodged preliminary written submissions.
Hearings were held on 30 October 2003 and 8 December 2003. A hearing scheduled for 22 December 2003 was postponed until 12 January 2004 at the request of the applicant due to the death of his family member.
The applicant did not attend the hearing scheduled for 12 January 2004 and the Ljubljana District Court consequently issued a decision suspending the proceeding.
On 13 April 2004 the applicant requested the court to continue the proceedings and on 6 May 2004 made a request that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the two hearings held on 4 June 2004 and on 2 September 2005, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.
On 28 October 2004 and 1 August 2005 the applicant lodged written submissions.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 October 2005.
10.  On 18 October 2005 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.
The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Nüziders, Austria.
6.  On 16 July 1994 the applicant damaged his car in a car accident. He had taken out insurance with the insurance company IVA. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 28 July 1995 the applicant and IVA instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking damages in the amount of 205,012 tolars (approximately 850 euros) for the car damage.
On 5 July 1996 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.
On 5 July and 8 October 1996 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 17 January 1997 the court held a hearing. Since the defendant did not appear before the court and failed to reply to the applicant’s claim, the applicant requested the court to issue a default judgment.
On 12 February 1998 the court decided to recommence the hearing in the present case.
8.  On 17 March 1998 the applicant appealed.
On 5 October 2000 the Ljubljana Local Court dismissed the appeal.
On 19 October 2000 the applicant appealed.
On 9 August 2001 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) dismissed the appeal.
9.  In the meanwhile the first-instance court continued the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim.
On 20 April 1998 the applicant requested that the defendant’s reply to the claim be served on him.
Between 12 May 1998 and 17 December 2003 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 16 October 1998 and 7 May 1999 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the four hearings held between 26 May 1998 and 16 January 2004, one was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the case was transferred twice to a new judge for an undetermined reason.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 16 February 2004.
10.  On 18 February 2004 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani).
On 11 January 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The decision was served on the applicant on 7 March 2005.
11.  On 6 May and 13 July 2005 the applicant lodged preliminary written observations with the Ljubljana Local Court.
The proceedings are still pending.